Published on 12 December 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 55919/21
Emilio PREBIANCO against Italy
and 31 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 21 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the application of retrospective legislation, specifically Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 to pending national proceedings involving the applicants.
The applicants, who are all represented by the lawyer N. Zampieri, were employed by the local government authorities. When they were transferred, under Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999, to work for the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, their length of service with the local government authorities was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the national district courts (see appended table), arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental to them. They sought placement in the professional grade corresponding to their full length of service from the date of the transfer as well as the determination of any compensation due to them.
When those proceedings were pending on appeal, Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 entered into force. This provision intended to give effect to what the legislator claimed to be the original intention of the Parliament when adopting Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999. Relying on that interpretative law, the domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ claims.
The applicants challenged the judgments before the Court of Cassation. In the course of the proceedings, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2011 in Scattolon, C-108/10, the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the competent courts of appeal for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The appellate courts ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against these judgments and the Court of Cassation upheld the appellate courts’ findings and conclusions. The Court of Cassation refused to refer a question of constitutionality of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005, stating that the matter had already been assessed by the Constitutional Court in its judgment no. 311 of 2009. According to the Court of Cassation, in particular, there was no reason to refer a new question of the constitutionality of the contested provision, even though the Constitutional Court had decided before the issuance of the judgments Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v. Italy, nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020, since the Constitutional Court had recognised the existence of overriding reasons relating to the public interest which justified retrospective application of the contested law and had established that the power to make such assessment rested with the Constitutional Court itself.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the legislative interference pending the proceedings which, in their view, infringed their right to a fair trial. They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the retroactive application of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 deprived them of their property insofar as this provision put an end to the dispute between them and the administration.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was there an interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute on account of the retrospective application to their case of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 (see Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v. Italy, nos. 29483/11 and4 others, 30 January 2020)?
If so, was that interference based on compelling grounds of general interest?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering the enactment of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005?
If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?
3. Having regard to the refusal of the Court of Cassation to refer a question of constitutionality of the contested law on the basis that the Constitutional Court had already decided a similar matter in its judgment no. 311 of 2009, even though this judgment
(i) was issued before the publication of the Court’s judgments in Agrati and Others v. Italy (nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011) and Cicero and Others v. Italy (nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020), and
(ii) declared ill-founded the question of constitutionality and, therefore, did not preclude the referral of new questions of constitutionality on the same provision, especially when the development of the case-law of the Court provided for new arguments to consider a question of constitutionality not manifestly ill-founded,
the Government are requested to clarify under which conditions the domestic legal system requests national judges to bring the interpretation of the Convention’s provisions offered by the development of the case-law of the Court to the attention of the Constitutional Court.
4. The applicants are invited to submit a declaration concerning the status of enforcement of the domestic judgments on the merit in their regard. If a domestic judgment has been enforced in their regard, the applicants are invited to include in the declaration the following information: the number, the R.G. and the date of the judgment in their favour, the sums received, and possibly the sums subsequently recovered by the administration. The applicants are invited to provide all the relevant documents concerning the enforcement of the judgments and, where applicable, the recovery of the sums.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
First instance judgment
Second instance judgment
First judgment of the Court of Cassation
Referral to the Court of Appeal
Final order of the Court of Cassation
1.
55919/21
Prebianco
v. Italy
11/11/2021
Emilio PREBIANCO
1953
Paese
Treviso District Court,
R.G. 817/02,
30/05/2003
Venice District Court,
R.G. 592/03,
04/12/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 22905/09 and 22907/09,
02/08/2012
Bologna Court of Appeal,
R.G. 624/13,
24/02/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 17194/15,
13/05/2021
2.
55941/21
Dalla Vecchia v. Italy
11/11/2021
Maria Luisa DALLA VECCHIA
1957
Treviso
3.
55989/21
Favero v. Italy
11/11/2021
Laura FAVERO
1959
Preganziol
4.
55998/21
Ceccon v. Italy
11/11/2021
Gemma CECCON
1946
Castelfranco Veneto
5.
56280/21
Mazzariol
v. Italy
11/11/2021
Paola MAZZARIOL
1961
Trévise
6.
56313/21
Cappellari
v. Italy
11/11/2021
Valeria CAPPELLARI
1951
Carbonera
7.
57585/21
Granello
v. Italy
11/11/2021
Roberto GRANELLO
1961
Collesalvetti
8.
57599/21
Elvite
v. Italy
11/11/2021
Luise ELVITE
1947
Trévise
9.
58777/21
Bortoluzzi v. Italy
25/11/2021
Franca BORTOLUZZI
1954
Mestre
Venice District Court,
R.G. 347/04,
23/05/2005
Venice Court of Appeal,
R.G. 616/05,
10/11/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 24793/09,
24/01/2013
Trieste Court of Appeal,
R.G. 155/13,
30/12/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 17185/15,
25/05/2021
10.
58785/21
Cini v. Italy
25/11/2021
Antonella CINI
1958
Mestre
11.
58789/21
Tosello v. Italy
25/11/2021
Silvia TOSELLO
1960
Marcon
12.
58868/21
Cecconi v. Italy
23/11/2021
Luciana CECCONI
1949
Mestre
13.
58874/21
Favaretto v. Italy
25/11/2021
Antonella FAVARETTO
1958
Martellago
14.
58901/21
Roncarati v. Italy
23/11/2021
Benedetta RONCARATI
1973
San Maria di Sala
15.
58903/21
Lorenzi v. Italy
25/11/2021
Daniela LORENZI
1960
Stra
16.
58907/21
Cagnin v. Italy
23/11/2021
Marilena CAGNIN
1961
Noale
17.
58911/21
Zuccon v. Italy
23/11/2021
Martina ZUCCON
1971
Mira
18.
58975/21
Pugiotto v. Italy
23/11/2021
Giampaolo PUGIOTTO
1956
Mirano
19.
58983/21
Salmaso v. Italy
23/11/2021
Bruno SALMASO
1950
Fosso’
20.
58986/21
Favaro v. Italy
23/11/2021
Emanuela FAVARO
1962
Spinea
21.
58996/21
Milan v. Italy
23/11/2021
Stefano MILAN
1959
Mira
22.
59001/21
Milione v. Italy
23/11/2021
Adelina MILIONE
1958
Spinea
23.
59012/21
Carelli v. Italy
23/11/2021
Filomena CARELLI
1950
Noale
24.
60870/21
Fracassetto v. Italy
02/12/2021
Maria Luisa FRACASSETTO
1958
Lusia
Rovigo District Court,
R.G. 554/03,
21/07/2005
Venice Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1019/05, 1028/05, 1029/05,
25/02/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 16724/08,
13/07/2012
Bologna Court of Appeal,
R.G. 634/13,
20/10/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 14159/15,
03/06/2021
25.
60906/21
Corra’ v. Italy
02/12/2021
Fiorenzo CORRA’
1952
Boara Pisani
Rovigo District Court,
R.G. 552/03,
21/07/2005
26.
60902/21
Pivotto v. Italy
02/12/2021
Bruno PIVOTTO
1957
Breganze
Vicenza District Court,
R.G. 1273/03,
02/12/2004
Venice Court of Appeal,
R.G. 61-63/05,
05/12/2007
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 19959/08,
13/07/2012
Bologna Court of Appeal,
R.G. 635/13,
22/10/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 17190/15,
03/06/2021
27.
60911/21
Pozza v. Italy
02/12/2021
Fabio POZZA
1957
Recoaro Terme
Vicenza District Court,
R.G. 1274/03,
02/12/2004
28.
60960/21
Covolo v. Italy
02/12/2021
Giuseppe COVOLO
1961
Breganze
Vicenza District Court,
R.G. 1267/03,
02/12/2004
29.
60913/21
Bortoluz v. Italy
30/11/2021
Valeria BORTOLUZ
1955
Feltre
Belluno District Court,
R.G. 24/04,
08/06/2005
Venice Court of Appeal,
R.G. 867/05, 868/05, 877/05, 895/05, 896/05, 902/05, 903/05,
27/11/2007
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 29699/08,
13/07/2012
Bologna Court of Appeal,
R.G. 632/13,
20/10/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 14158/15,
31/05/2021
30.
60923/21
Corrado v. Italy
30/11/2021
Evelina CORRADO
1952
Belluno
Belluno District Court,R.G. 26/04,
13/06/2005
31.
60934/21
Maccagnan v. Italy
30/11/2021
Antoniella MACCAGNAN
1954
Mel
Belluno District Court,
R.G. 231/04,
13/06/2005
32.
61115/21
De Villa Bais v. Italy
30/11/2021
Mariella DE VILLA BAIS
1956
San Pietro in Cadore
Belluno District Court,
R.G. 233/04,
13/06/2005